and also on a kinda related note can someone help me out with this question in the personality study: 'Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understanding of the personality’s significance in history.’ to what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied? i would post this in the modern question thread but i'm not bothered to go there right now 😂
ahaha, that was my question last year
The way I'd approach it is by considering what the different perspectives of your historical personality's are, and then
why they have manifested! So for my response, I said that the interpretations of Trotsky are fuelled more so by the historians interpretation of communism as an ideology, more so than Trotsky's person - for example, right wing historians present him as the more negative naive idealist/ruthless authoritarian, because that is what they percieve the ideology to be, in comparison to lefty historians who are my positive, and present him as a "practical revolutionary". In order to support this, historians cherry pick, presenting only certain parts of an event or persons life, or placing a particular emphasis on certain things over others, in order to prove their point. For example, the right wing historians focus on Trotsky's failure to predict a German revolution, whereas the left wing historians focus on how Trotsky responded to this failure. In this way, the controversy surrounding the personality reveals their complex nature, whereby their life is not a "black and white image", but full of nuance and grey areas.
By taking into account both perspectives, we gain insight into the various ways in which their significance is depicted, and their overall significance to history
(hope this makes sense aha)